Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:31:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v26

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

The City 3, San Francisco 2, Westbrook 1, Nicole 1, Johnson 1, Minnie 1, Tracy 1, Alice Griffith 1, Minnesota 1, Ma 1, Hud 1, Kroger 1, The Navy 1, City 1, Yerba Buena 1, South Beach 1, Us 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 2, 2013
    4:00 - 4:31pm PST  

4:00pm
minnesota that's why we see this through the plant. a lot of people don't realize how much work sgo goes into cleaning the water were. we offer free service to san >> >> it is 116 i'll to call to order this meeting on - >> the first order of business
4:01pm
is rolling. (calling names) >> madam secretary it the mike still on? commissioner >> absent. (calling names) all other members of the commission are present. the next order of business is two announcements. a the next commission meeting will be on tuesday december 3rd at the 1:00 p.m. in city hall. b announcement of electronic devices please understand that all electronic devises are prohibited and the chair may order you to leave if you
4:02pm
>> those electronic dies. >> c announcement of time for public comment. the public has you think to 3 minutes unless the christmas dauptsz a short period of time on any item. it is strongly recommended that any members of the public fill out a card and submit the completed card to the secretary. and the next one is from closed session. the next business we have no items. the next business item it is 5 the consent calendar approval the minutes november 13, 2013, >> madam chair.
4:03pm
>> all the commissioners should have received minutes in their packet. any public comment >> i have no speaker cards are there any comments on the minutes if not may i have a motion. >> i move we approval the minutes for october 15th. any second >> thank you madam secretary please call the really. >> (calling names) madam chair the vote is four i's. the next sort of business is rem the approval to the oversight board of the long rages property plan governing the disposition of real property under the
4:04pm
dissolution law madam director >> thank you, ma'am secretary good afternoon. commissioners we've had two previous workshops on the property plan which is required the preparation is of which is required now that we've paid the tax amenities approximately $11 million. it sets forth the time clock for this disposition plan and that outside date tar the submittal to the state is november 29th. you've heard this in a series of workshops there's the actual property plan. with that, i'll to ask tracy for
4:05pm
oc ii to present this item >> thank you executive director. still having technical difficulties interest it doesn't show the whole screen. well, we're having technical difficulties. as executive director mentioned today, we're before you to seek our recommendation to the oversight board for the successor agencies for long-term management plan for the dissolution law it's more a a
4:06pm
plan based on your recommendation we'll be going before the board. on monday november 25th before we submit it to the state department of the finance. my presentation today i've tried to organize it more by disposition plan than by the area to make it a little bit easier to digest and i'll make it shorter. >> there you go. >> just briefly i want to remind everyone quickly about the 4 alternatives that the state has given us for deposition. one is recipe for governmental pretty much which the the transfer to the city. the second is tofully fulfill an
4:07pm
enforceable obligation that requires either a transfer to the city or a transfer to a third party or continued ownership or whatever the enforceable obligation says. the third is they don't fall into those two categories then the property should be sold. however, there's an exception to that. that allows for properties that were identified for specific use if an approved redevelopment plan. and those properties were go on going to be developed those properties can be transferred to the city's. all the properties don't fall neatly into one of the categories many cross over into a couple of indications. i've tried to organize them
4:08pm
based on the most logical plan. the plan is the same but it's going to vary from the way it is in your memo. the first deposition category is the ones we've put into the general purpose category. the properties that we're saying that will be transferred to the city for governmental pretty much we have the gardens and shore bio park and hunters point. one of the ma many parks that's adjacent to a city park and that minnie park is 340i7bd by city.
4:09pm
the recommendation amenity particles that of streets and sidewalks and that strange property that we had the one easement that we have that's not connected to any property in golden gate way but it's half the remain of street and open space so that's in that category. and still in good morning purpose that are properties where we're going to remain for a period of time to fill our development obligations that are associated with various agreements but then after the development obligations are completed then be we'll transfer them to the city and the property that fall into that educator are this park particles in trans bay and in the shipyard
4:10pm
and then the street particles in the shipyard. and i think one thing that's slightly different is the modular building i don't know if i mentioned this it's on one of the park paddlers so that will transfer to the city for governmental purpose. so then the second board position category is having to deal with our enforceable comboogsz. there's several subsets in this enforceable category i'll go over separately. so the first is when we have american people enforceable obligation it requires us to transfer property to the city and the properties that fall
4:11pm
into that are the moscone which we have a ground lease and that requires us to transfer that property back to the city once the bonds are paid off and once the represent is fully paid. and then the second property that falls in that a subset is the land that we lease and those require a transfer to the port once the successor obligations are completed. a second a subset of enforceable obligations that requires transfer are the properties the land that we acquire from the navy that's not going to be developed for public purposes that we transfer to the shipyard developer for the private uses.
4:12pm
and then another property that falls in that a subset is the particles that's related to the phase two shipyard and that d da requires those particles be transferred to the san francisco housing authority as part of the construction of the replacement housing project for the alice griffith housing project. a third sibling set in the enforceable innovation category is enforceable obligations are require the agency to have an ongoing property management role. in this case what we're proposing is a transfer to the city to continue doing that on o ongoing property management role pr the two properties that fuel into this crag are the summer
4:13pm
heritage and commercial particle that's under a ground lease with the developer. and this transfer - this position plan assumes that a workout deal is struck between the successor agency and the city and the reasonable person sea the ground lease stays in plays and the rents generated under that ground lewis lease would first go to the city to pay off their $5.5 million construction loan and then the rents go to the successor agency about 3 had the $1 million that's for land payments and that $3.1 million which are payments over time is unrestricted and come in payments over time.
4:14pm
the second property is the land that we lease to kroger's grocery store in the bay point area. and this this is a fairly long-term ground lease and the rents nicole are r50ik9d for cb 2k3wib8 purposes because we purposed the land with the community block if you happened with the person of building the grocery store. and the figure out a subset increase in board enforceable category is enforceable comboogs it requires the pursuant to the redevelopment plan. in this case didn't this calls for a transfer to the city.
4:15pm
and the properties that would fall into this sub kit e set would be the shipyard particles. this is a refinement of what's in our memo based on 23u6r9 discussions internally and we feel this is a better spot for it in the property management plan where the aftra studios for example, their use to r50ik9d the rent are restricted for frunt the shipyard to the d b.a. and sunshine have to be permanent part of the studios they would be transferred with the r50ik9d rent. all the have a doubt particles we'll remain those until the developer has complete the sfroo infrastructure for those lots
4:16pm
and those finished lots will transfer to the city for the further development of the facilities. those are identified as simple in the shipyard phase two and a contemplated in 9 shipyard development plan. also for building 813 that we would remain it again until the developer has completed the infrastructure and transfer it for the future development for the incubator in a similar fashion. okay. so the if it wasn't a governmental purpose then it falls generally in the sale category. there's a couple of subsets within the sale category the first is where the deposition
4:17pm
plan calls for a sale to american people enforceable obligation. and that would be the transfer of the particles with the implementation plan we're required to depose of that at fair market values and use the design and construction of the new center. the second property that falls into the sub category is block one and trans bay which again is containment 3r50u7b9 to the trans bay design controls and development guidelines contemplated a land uncle and the sale of the 1y5i7b9 properties and it's contemplated we'll sell it to make a large block important development.
4:18pm
again, the proceeds are rieblthd pursuant to assembly bill 812 for the affordable housing remit in the trans bay project area so any proceeds of that sale would be used to build the avon that trans bay block one. anticipate is second a subset within the category is just a sale at fair market value and the property that fall into this category are the fillmore heritage garage but again in this case, the restrictions would be for that garage particle it includes the land and that was purchased with urban renewal fund and the
4:19pm
second property is the air space that's above and below the contemporary jewish museum. and as we've mention in our memo the development rights for the air space above the museum have been solid there's no fair market value to that and the particle under the museum is not accessible and can be used to expand their gluten storage for their exhibits so we don't think there's much space. the third category are many
4:20pm
rental there's two slices of of land we own in yerba buena and pretty much the whole block is owned by the san francisco housing authority it seemed to make sense those slivers should be transferred to the housing authority and there's the ellis street driveway we own and that one could have a small amount it was provided at $10,000 it was a lot of easements that restrict it to vehicular access. there's the hunters point that are more like stairs and the small little access areas that really should be part of the adjacent affordable housing project.
4:21pm
they're really for those resident that live in those affordable housing projects. so like i said, the only circumstance here where he have proceeds that are taxable would seem through the fillmore heritage particle like i mentioned in the account deal is struck then the indirectly proceeds would be the $3.1 million that is owed and that would come in payments over time after the cities construction loan is paid off. in the scenario where a workout deal is not reached and the city foreclosures wool work with the city to sell the particle and in
4:22pm
this case anything above and beyond would be indirectly proceeds if there's anything left >> finally, there's a property we have that kind of falls under the depositions law there are 0 housing educates that need to be transferred to the housing assessor agency. one a subset of those properties are housing assets that we still own that we have development obligations to complete those affordable housing projects and once those are complete we'll transfer them to the cities housing assessor agency. those properties are all the
4:23pm
affordable housing particles that are in trans bay. and all the ones in mission bay and the shipyard and there are a few other ones on 58 third street and 474 thomas street. those two last ones are enforceable obligation there search-and-seizure is our obligation to replacement housing obligation that the assessor agency this is a to replace 6 thousand unit that were destroyed by the former agency prior to 1976 so those units would go towards fulfilling that replacement housing obligation. then the second a subset of a transfer to the housing assessor are just one asset we have well,
4:24pm
it's two different particles in the same project we'll transfer to the housing assessor pursuant to section 34 of the deposition law that's different. it's basically a provision that requires the oversight board to make finding that for affordable housing projects that have a mix of uses they're having other uses like commercial space the oversight board nodes to make vmentd there's a greater benefit to keep them together than separate. the westbrook health clinic and grarg garage falls into that category. the garage is 3 particles the
4:25pm
health clinic particle and we still own the health clinic and the garage. so our plan is to transfer it to the housing successor so it can stay together as a mixed housing project. so i just wanted to is in closing we, you know, again we're seeking our recommendation for approval of the plan we feel we've presented you with a plan that applies to the deposition law and developed in complication with our city partners and our community stakeholder. and just to let you know some of the community outreach that has
4:26pm
happened. we've had regular mostly cac meetings in mission bay and the stripping shipyard. that's been part of the agenda. we've had special meetings in yerba buena gardens every other week and special meetings at the request of the stakeholders. we had - we met with people out at shore view park open october 31st and out at south beach harbor on other 27 and in the heritage district section on november 9th. you've received several letters with concerns about the future with the mission parks and the fillmore heritage center and you'll hear from many of them speaking on those property.
4:27pm
again, just the timing we're here before you to seek our recommendation to the oversight board and going to the oversight board on monday november 25th and we'll submit this to the department of finance and that concludes the presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you very much. two members of the public and other groups have submitted comments those railroad included in our packets and we'll be sure to read and review them and take into account any commentary you have. i see a number of speaker cards i'll be limiting the speaking to 2 minutes to get to everyone. if there's any public comment on
4:28pm
this item >> i have fourteen speaker cards. members of the public please come to the podium in this order (calling names) >> chair johnson and commissioners, i live in yerba buena. involved in an organization. i'm speaking in extort support of the yerba buena principles and they be include with submission to the state and a (calling names) >> can we start the clock? good afternoon. i'm victor and
4:29pm
we're here in support of the cities remedies. i'm here to speak to you as legal council. with me is board chair christen our retired coercions officer. we're here to ask for the property to be transferred to the city with the following caveat that the jazz center be preferred and evaluated to be a self-staining community asset which is xhoiptd of a modest space and programming for the lobby area adjacent to o she's and fillmore restaurants. along with the city recovering it's development and for its ability to repay the hud
4:30pm
obligations and for the investors to make a modest profit it's corruptible it be reinvested into the community. african-americans began to flee the lack you have opportunity in the last century. the bay area was effected when african-americans moved hero to take up jobs in the ship jarred. they've brought their skills and he talent. i believe it would turn the talent into blues and jazz. in the 1950s they've put san francisco on the map and maums famous folks stayed in other hotels like in the fillmore because